Equal authority of Tradition to Scripture

[ETide]

Let's ask the question flat out..

Are there any people here in this forum, posting or otherwise.. who believe that they are working for (or toward) their own SALVATION.. ?

Is that clear enough..?

And if so.. YES, or NO..

 

[WarriorAngel]

It's fine to have opinions WA, although trusting in Christ and in His word concerning your salvation is not presumptious at all.. it's embracing the promises of God.. stop listening to men, and trust in the Lord Jesus Christ..

AND yet Christ trusted in men...or were the Apostles not men??

You trust in yourself, and you are a man...
Sorry if I assume.

It's important to read the rest of this verse.. because it says clearly that it IS GOD WORKING IN YOU.. and that's exactly right.. when a person is saved and has CHRIST IN THEM, then obviously GOD is WORKING IN THEM.. and we should know this and it should result in our falling down on our faces before Him in thanksgiving and adoration..

GOD is IN THOSE who He has sealed with His Spirit.. it doesn't get any more intense than that..

Are you preaching to the choir?
You said what I said, but you are saying it in your own way.
Now either you yourself a man has decided this, or someone [from mankind] instructed you.

Salvation IS the miraculous WORK OF GOD in a person's life.. when they trust IN HIM, after hearing the word of truth, the gospel of their salvation, and after they believe.. they are sealed with the holy Spirit of promise which is the earnest of their inheritance until the redemption of the purchased posession.

Salvation is the Promise.
But you are not saying you are saved..which is after judgement.

You're confusing salvation with walking in the Spirit versus walking in the flesh.. The Christian life is a lifetime of correction

and of being conformed to the glory and image of CHRIST.. it's a long road, although this has nothing to do with SALVATION.. but rather our sanctification which is also through our glorious Saviour and Lord Jesus Christ.

To His eternal praise and glory..

Perhaps I didnt understand your statements....and I was presumptious that you were saying you were already saved. Which is erroneous to suggest.....but since you agree to the 'lifetime of correction' and I will add....repentence...then you are not so far off the Catholic mark.

 

[Lynn73]

Let's ask the question flat out..

Are there any people here in this forum, posting or otherwise.. who believe that they are working for (or toward) their own SALVATION.. ?

Is that clear enough..?

And if so.. YES, or NO..

No, I'm not working for or toward salvation. I already have it and have had it for approx 30 years. I'm not going to be saved "someday" I'm saved right now. And my works didn't have a thing to do with it.

 

[WarriorAngel]

Would you even believe me if I told you?

I am curious what sola scriptura tells your church.

It might even be a misunderstanding of communication in the exegesis.

I can comment on what the Church believes as well.

 

[S Walch]

I am curious what sola scriptura tells your church.

It might even be a misunderstanding of communication in the exegesis.

I can comment on what the Church believes as well.

Change your "the church" to "the Roman Catholic Church", and I might actually answer you.

 

[WarriorAngel]

Now for all intents and purposes, I will show you from the Catholic notation on this scripture.

Keeping in mind, this is an ancient teaching.


12 "Upon this foundation"... The foundation is Christ and his doctrine: or the true faith in him, working through charity. The building upon this foundation gold, silver, and precious stones, signifies the more perfect preaching and practice of the gospel; the wood, hay, and stubble, such preaching as that of the Corinthian teachers (who affected the pomp of words and human eloquence) and such practice as is mixed with much imperfection, and many lesser sins. Now the day of the Lord, and his fiery trial, (in the particular judgment immediately after death,) shall make manifest of what sort every man's work has been: of which, during this life, it is hard to make a judgment. For then the fire of God's judgment shall try every man's work. And they, whose works, like wood, hay, and stubble, cannot abide the fire, shall suffer loss; these works being found to be of no value; yet they themselves, having built upon the right foundation, (by living and dying in the true faith and in the state of grace, though with some imperfection,) shall be saved yet so as by fire; being liable to this punishment, by reason of the wood, hay, and stubble, which was mixed with their building.


AS I said, I love this scripture...so oft overlooked.

 

[mike1reynolds]

The Catholic position doesn't say that immersion is wrong, though.

As is so often the case, the RCC position on this is very reasonable and level headed. I was only objecting to infant immersion. Jesus was obviously immersed by John.

 

[ETide]

AND yet Christ trusted in men...or were the Apostles not men??

Christ didn't trust in men WA.. He saves men through His love and grace.

You trust in yourself, and you are a man...

Sorry if I assume.

Obviously you have no basis for this statement at all.. it's pointless to discuss these things when statements like this are made..

I trust in the Lord Jesus Christ for salvation.. how in the world could that possibly be difficult for anybody to understand..

Perhaps I didnt understand your statements....and I was presumptious that you were saying you were already saved. Which is erroneous to suggest.....but since you agree to the 'lifetime of correction' and I will add....repentence...then you are not so far off the Catholic mark.

I am already saved WA.. it's a done deal.. sealed with the Spirit of promise which IS the earnest of my inheritance until the redemption of the purchased posession to the praise of His glory..

 

[ETide]

No, I'm not working for or toward salvation. I already have it and have had it for approx 30 years. I'm not going to be saved "someday" I'm saved right now. And my works didn't have a thing to do with it.

AMEN,

Anyone else..?

Anyone willing to say whether or not that they ARE, or ARE NOT working for their salvation..?

 

[mike1reynolds]

I'm sorry but the Bible says salvation is a gift received by faith, NOT a reward for works.

I have never once disagreed with this. Stopping being so defensive, I’m not contradicting you, I’m adding a qualifying point. However, you are contradicting yourself on corollary issues because of not taking into account this qualifying point. I agree with you about salvation, but I disagree with you about rewards. You treat them differently, I do not. I apply the same reasoning that you use to salvation to rewards as well. So now, read the question again:

Lynn, you said yourself that works do earn rewards in Heaven, but not salvation. What is the difference? How can there be a difference? Salvation is a reward too, it can’t be otherwise.

You say that rewards can be earned through good works. I say that you can’t earn rewards through good works either. Your reasoning is not consistent, I’m just applying your reasoning in a consistent way. Perhaps I misunderstood your statements in other threads on rewards vs. salvation. You made a statement in another thread that while salvation can’t be earned, rewards can. Is that a correct reflection of your belief?

Do you understanding what I’m saying about selfishness vs. selflessness? That is not a contradiction either. I’m not saying that selfless works earn you reward. If you do the works as a service to God rather than as a service to yourself then it has a positive effect. It is not a matter of earning anything, you have this effect on yourself. You mold your character by doing these things, but only when done with selflessness. If your thinking like a merchant about what you are going to earn by good works then you do harm to your moral character.

I totally and completely agree with the basic thrust of your assertion, but there are a host of secondary points that follow from the primary thrust of your argument that you never make reference to and I don’t think you understand. They follow directly from your argument, it is not a contradiction to anything you’ve said, I’m just expanding your argument in a way that I think is more readily intelligible to people who otherwise might disagree with you.

 

[S Walch]

AMEN,

Anyone else..?

Anyone willing to say whether or not that they ARE, or ARE NOT working for their salvation..?

We could never work for our salvation. Salvation is not something to be earned.

Savation is a gift, but like with all gifts, you can always give the gift back.

You can certainly "leave" your salvation.

Infact, that is basically what Yahushua/Jesus said to the Ephesian assembly in Revelation:

"I know all the things you do. I have seen your hard work and your patient endurance. I know you don't tolerate evil people. You have examined the claims of those who say they are apostles but are not. You have discovered they are liars. You have patiently suffered for me without quitting. But I have this complaint against you. You don't love me or each other as you did at first! Look how far you have left your first love! Turn back to me again and work as you did at first. If you don't, I will come and remove your lampstand from its place among the churches.

Also, don't forget romans 11, Hebrews 6...*could go on but wont*

 

[WarriorAngel]

[/size]

Christ didn't trust in men WA.. He saves men through His love and grace.

I never said that Christ needed men to save us thru His act........
But He trusted the Apostles who were men, were they not??

AND we all rely on those men in that instance, dont we?
To know what Christ said and taught?
Am I correct?
DID He or did He not trust them to procure scriptures and teachings for mankind on His behalf?

Obviously you have no basis for this statement at all.. ..

I did not check your gender....sorry.

I trust in the Lord Jesus Christ for salvation.. how in the world could that possibly be difficult for anybody to understand..let alone a person who claims to be a Christian..?

Your remark against my Church by inferring I trust in men and I assume by thatstatement you were suggesting I should not, then the remark is justified when asking if you trust yourself because you are part of mankind...are you not?

And since you do not think men can lead with authority over scripture, then I ask how your interpretation has validity if we must concern ourselves with whom is teaching.

Christ Himself did not pen one word in scripture......and so it seems we are all trusting men with whom Christ trusted to write for us.

You did not speak about salvation...of which no man can hand us that...but your remark on not trusting men to teach Catholics.

Not to confuse the subject.

I am already saved WA.. it's a done deal.. sealed with the Spirit of promise which IS the earnest of my inheritance until the redemption of the purchased posession to the praise of His glory..

You obviously do not believe that portion of scripture.. and so you'll continue to hit the catholic mark which you strive toward...

No I do not believe that interpretation of scripture.

Proverbs 27
1 Boast not for tomorrow, for thou knowest not what the day to come may bring forth.

Romans 11
18 Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee.

Philippians 2
12 Wherefore, my dearly beloved, (as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but much more now in my absence,) with fear and trembling work out your salvation.

 

[calmcoolandelected]

Let's ask the question flat out..

Are there any people here in this forum, posting or otherwise.. who believe that they are working for (or toward) their own SALVATION.. ?

Is that clear enough..?

And if so.. YES, or NO..

I say No. See my post #558

CC&E

 

[FreeinChrist]

[/size]

Christ didn't trust in men WA.. He saves men through His love and grace.



Obviously you have no basis for this statement at all.. it's pointless to discuss these things when statements like this are made..

I trust in the Lord Jesus Christ for salvation.. how in the world could that possibly be difficult for anybody to understand..let alone a person who claims to be a Christian..?



I am already saved WA.. it's a done deal.. sealed with the Spirit of promise which IS the earnest of my inheritance until the redemption of the purchased posession to the praise of His glory..

You obviously do not believe that portion of scripture.. and so you'll continue to hit the catholic mark which you strive toward..

Agreed!

 

[Trento]

You have failed to prove this. None of what you have asserted here contradicts the fact that Augustine considered Scripture to be the final arbiter of truth and ultimate authority on salvific matters.

HISTORY of the CHRISTIAN CHURCH - Phillip Schaff


CHAPTER X.

CHURCH FATHERS, AND THEOLOGICAL LITERATURE

Quote Schaff--
"We recall his (Augustine's) famous anti-Manichaean dictum: "Ego evangelio non crederem, nisi me catholicae ecclesiae commoveret auctoritas." The Protestant would reverse this maxim, and ground his faith in the church on his faith in Christ and in the gospel. "

It was, indeed, a full and unconditional surrender of Augustine's mind and heart to God, but it was at the same time a submission of his private judgment to the authority of the church which led him to the faith of the gospel.

How embarrassing it must be to the Protestant scholars ! Imagine having the scholarly reputation that they have, yet also being incessantly guilty of fundamental logical errors in evaluating Augustine's Theology.
They have all the credentials and expertise, only to regretfully succumb to significant misunderstanding about how to evaluate church history.

 

[WarriorAngel]

As is so often the case, the RCC position on this is very reasonable and level headed. I was only objecting to infant immersion. Jesus was obviously immersed by John.

Infants are not immersed, and need not be. Thanks for bringing this up.

Pouring and Sprinkling versus Immersion

Ezek. 36:25 - Ezekiel prophesies that God "will 'sprinkle' clean water on you and you shall be clean." The word for "sprinkle" is "rhaino" which means what it says, sprinkle (not immersion). (“Kai rhaino eph hymas hydor katharon.”)


2 Kings 5:14 - Namaan went down and dipped himself in the Jordan. The Greek word for "dipped" is "baptizo." Here, baptizo means immersion. But many Protestant churches argue that "baptizo" and related tenses of the Greek word always mean immersion, and therefore the Catholic baptisms of pouring or sprinkling water over the head are invalid. The Scriptures disprove their claim.

Num. 19:18 – here, the verbs for dipping (“baptisantes”) and sprinkled (“bapsei”) refers to affusion (pouring) and sprinkling (aspersion), not immersion.

Matt. 3:11; Mark 1:8; Luke 3:16 -John the Baptist prophesied that Jesus will baptize ("baptisei") with the Holy Spirit and fire. In this case, "baptisei" refers to a "pouring" out over the head. This is confirmed by Matt. 3:16 where the Holy Spirit descends upon Jesus' head like a dove and Acts 2:3-4 where the Holy Spirit descended upon Mary and the apostles' heads in the form of tongues of fire. In each case, in fulfilling John the Baptist's prophecy, the Lord baptized ("baptizo") in the form of pouring out His Spirit upon the head, not immersing the person.

Matt. 20:22-23; Mark 10:38-39; Luke 12:50 - Jesus also talks about His baptism (from "baptizo") of blood, which was shed and sprinkled in His passion. But this baptism does not (and cannot) mean immersion.

Mark 7:3 - the Pharisees do not eat unless they wash ("baptizo" ) their hands. This demonstrates that "baptizo" does not always mean immersion. It can mean pouring water over something (in this case, over their hands).

Mark 7:4 - we see that the Jews washed ("bapto" from baptizo) cups, pitchers and vessels, but this does not mean that they actually immersed these items. Also, some manuscripts say the Jews also washed (bapto) couches, yet they did not immerse the couches, they only sprinkled them.

Luke 11:38 - Jesus had not washed ("ebaptisthe") His hands before dinner. Here, the derivative of "baptizo" just means washing up, not immersing.

Acts 2:41 - at Peter's first sermon, 3,000 were baptized. There is archeological proof that immersion would have been impossible in this area. Instead, these 3,000 people had to be sprinkled in water baptism.

Acts 8:38 - because the verse says they "went down into the water," many Protestants say this is proof that baptism must be done by immersion. But the verb to describe Phillip and the eunuch going down into the water is the same verb ("katabaino") used in Acts 8:26 to describe the angel's instruction to Phillip to stop his chariot and go down to Gaza. The word has nothing to do with immersing oneself in water.

Acts 8:39 - because the verse says "they came up out of the water," many Protestants also use this verse to prove that baptism must be done by immersion. However, the Greek word for "coming up out of the water" is "anebesan" which is plural. The verse is describing that both Phillip and the eunuch ascended out of the water, but does not prove that they were both immersed in the water. In fact, Phillip could not have baptized the eunuch if Phillip was also immersed. Finally, even if this was a baptism by immersion, the verse does not say that baptism by immersion is the only way to baptize.

Acts 9:18; 22:16 - Paul is baptized while standing up in the house of Judas. There is no hot tub or swimming pool for immersion. This demonstrates that Paul was sprinkled.

Acts 10:47-48 - Peter baptized in the house of Cornelius, even though hot tubs and swimming pools were not part of homes. Those in the house had to be sprinkled.

Acts 16:33 - the baptism of the jailer and his household appears to be in the house, so immersion is not possible.

Acts 2:17,18,33 - the pouring of water is like the "pouring" out of the Holy Spirit. Pouring is also called "infusion" (of grace).

1 Cor. 10:2 - Paul says that the Israelites were baptized ("baptizo") in the cloud and in the sea. But they could not have been immersed because Exodus 14:22 and 15:9 say that they went dry shod. Thus, "baptizo" does not mean immersed in these verses.

Eph. 4:5 - there is only one baptism, just as there is only one Lord and one faith. Once a person is validly baptized by water and the Spirit in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit with the intention of the Church (whether by pouring or immersion), there is no longer a need to rebaptize the person.

Titus 3:6 – the “washing of regeneration” (baptism) is “poured out” upon us. This “pouring out” generally refers to the pouring of baptismal waters over the head of the newly baptized.

Heb. 6:2 – on the doctrine of baptisms (the word used is “baptismos”) which generally referred to pouring and not immersion.

Heb. 10:22 – the author writes, “with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience.” This “sprinkling” of baptism refers to aspersion, not immersion. The text also parallels 1 Peter 3:21, which expressly mentions baptism and its ability to, like Heb. 10:22, purify the conscience (the interior disposition of a person).

Isaiah 44:3 - the Lord "pours" water on the thirsty land and "pours" His Spirit upon our descendants. The Lord is “pouring,” not “immersing.”
2 Thess. 2:15 - hold fast to the tradition of the Church, whether oral or written. Since the time of Christ, baptisms have been done by pouring or sprinkling.

link

 

[JCrawf]

It isn't arrogant to believe what the Bible tells us and it tells us we can know we're saved.

Well, if you're interested, there was a recent discussion going along this general question about what does and does not the Bible say about who is saved and who may be going to Hell in OBOB in the thread Does the Bible tell us who is going to Heaven or Hell?

But, you're right in part - it isn't arrogant to believe in what the Bible says regarding slavation. It isn't arrogant to heed the warnings regarding what the Bible says on what may keep a person from reaching the Kingdom as well. But what is considered arrogance is to claim absolute assurance as to who is and isn't going to Heaven or Hell. Honestly, none of us know. Even with the Catholic Church's process of canonizing Saints, it isn't an assurance that the Saints are in Heaven - just that we are certain because of their imitation of Christ, their holy and devout life in Christ that they are in all likelyhood in heaven with Christ.

For example, we both know that St. Paul was a Godly man and was that, when converted to Christ, his deeds were done in the name of the Lord. However, do we know with absolute assurance that St. Paul is in Heaven as we speak? Some Christians would say no because of their theology that believes that no one has yet to be resurrected and brought into eternity with Christ. Yet, in regards to what I know from Scripture and Tradition, I am certain that, if St. Paul is not in Heaven at this moment, he is certain to be there eventually.

My certainty goes back to what St. Paul said of Baptism: "we have been buried with him by baptism into death, so that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life" (Romans 6:4).

But further, because of my belief in sanctification, I also believe that we do, according to the life in the Spirit, partake even now in the resurrected life, so that the walk in newness of life presents to us as St. Paul teaches:

"[N]ow that you have been freed from sin and enslaved to God, the advantage you get is sanctification. The end is eternal life. For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord." (Romans 6:22-23)

Pax Tecum,

John

 

[calmcoolandelected]

Agreed!

Ephesians 2:8 -8 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God

Jonah 2:9 -Salvation is of the Lord.

Romans 8:33 - It is God who justifies.

 

[WarriorAngel]

I have never once disagreed with this. Stopping being so defensive, I’m not contradicting you, I’m adding a qualifying point.

And you are indeed allowed to add your input. Whether we agree or disagree I appreciate your input.

Hello, BTW!

 

[Robskiwarrior]

Heb. 6:2 – on the doctrine of baptisms (the word used is “baptismos”) which generally referred to pouring and not immersion.

baptismos {bap-tis-mos'} Strongs Ref: 909


1) a washing, purification effected by means of water a) of washing prescribed by the Mosaic law (Heb 9:10) which seems to mean an exposition of the difference between the washings prescribed by the Mosaic law and Christian baptism

Coming from the route word of

baptizo {bap-tid'-zo} Strongs Ref: 907


1) to dip repeatedly, to immerse, to submerge (of vessels sunk)
2) to cleanse by dipping or submerging, to wash, to make clean with water, to wash one's self, bathe 3) to overwhelm

Coming from the route word

bapto {bap'-to}

1) to dip, dip in, immerse 2) to dip into dye, to dye, colour

That one just caught my eye and I thought you would like to know some facts. I would like to add that there is no referance to pouring - its mearly washing, and then the Route of that word baptizo describes how its done. Then the route of baptizo goes even further.